Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a reminder to everyone that the Bill of Rights exists to put restrictions on government. That's it. It says what they CAN'T do. It doesn't say what your rights are or aren't. It doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive list of rights. It's a list of specific things that the government is NOT allowed to do. It can't infringe speech. It can't deprive you of property without due process. It can't make you testify against yourself. And it can't tell you what guns you can or can't own.
And if the majority want to impose a 20% super tax on all men, or women, aged 20-70 on gross income, you'd be fine with that? How about stripping voting rights from one gender? Or prohibiting say Catholicism? Or Judaism, or Islam?
The entire purpose of the constitution was to place certain things as beyond the scope of government, to explicitly state what functions government has,, to exclude government from everything else, and finally to define the government structure.
240 years is ancient. It is time we revisit the Constitution. We really should have another Constitutional Convention and modernize the whole thing. We can fix some of the more ridiculous things like the fact that 2A seems to give felons, terrorists, and insane people the right to bear arms. I will go with the majority and what they want.
Constitutional Republic:
A Constitutional Republic is a form of government where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, representatives mandated to govern according to existing constitutional law. It is because of this mandate that the elected class in a Constitutional Republic is limited in their power over the citizenry. The United States of America was created as and intended to survive as a Constitutional Republic.
Our Constitutional Republic is separated into three separate but equal branches of government; the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, represented by the Presidency, Congress and the Courts. Because of this no branch has a rein on absolute power thus assuring that there will be checks and balances to the governmental system and protection for the rule of law.
Through the elected representation employed by our Constitutional Republic the influence of the majority is tempered by protections for individual rights as mandated by constitutional law. Our form of government is deliberate in its attempt to thwart majoritarianism, thereby protecting political dissent and individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.
Tyranny is the few telling the many what to do without the many having any say in the matter. I suggested a system of majority rules, which is democratic. So how is that a tyranny?
I never said I don't like the principles the US was founded on, I said the Constitution needs to be reviewed. In fact the founders allowed for this very thing with the Amendment process, so they recognized the need for review.
Basically my point here is that I think a Constitution is more of a living document than a static one. In fact four of the current SCOTUS justices also see the Constitution in those terms and this irks the hell out of the right and is why they are always trying to unseat them.
Well the majority of Germans approved of what the Nazi's were doing otherwise they never would have came to power. How is that not tyranny by a majority? I guess you'd be okay with that too? After all the majority rules, right?
"A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):"
Yes but it has also left us with oddities such as the fact that the majority of Americans want stronger background checks for guns and 2A does not allow that.
Another example is a woman's right to choose which is being battled out in SCOTUS, yet again, even though polling shows a majority of Americans are in support of choice. It shouldn't be decided by nine people who are not elected, it should be decided at the ballot box.
The fact that SCOTUS ends up deciding important things rather than the electorate has completely politicized the court and turned it into a backdoor way to make law. This flies in the face of democracy since we now have two ways to make law, one democratic the other not.
Our original Constitution didn't allow women to vote which just shows it is not perfect anyway.
240 years is ancient. It is time we revisit the Constitution. We really should have another Constitutional Convention and modernize the whole thing. We can fix some of the more ridiculous things like the fact that 2A seems to give felons, terrorists, and insane people the right to bear arms.
What would you suggest we change, exactly? Please be as specific as you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
I will go with the majority and what they want.
If the majority says that you should be exterminated for your political views, skin color or whatever, you'd be totally cool with that? Of course you would. You "will go with the majority and what they want."
We have a Constitutional Republic instead of a pure democracy for some very good reasons. I realize that the educational system in this country isn't teaching you what those are anymore, so I won't hold your ignorance on this topic against you, for now, at least, but you really should do some investigation on this for yourself. For it to have any value, you MUST read things you disagree with. Only then can you make an informed opinion.
What would you suggest we change, exactly? Please be as specific as you can.
If the majority says that you should be exterminated for your political views, skin color or whatever, you'd be totally cool with that? Of course you would. You "will go with the majority and what they want."
We have a Constitutional Republic instead of a pure democracy for some very good reasons. I realize that the educational system in this country isn't teaching you what those are anymore, so I won't hold your ignorance on this topic against you, for now, at least, but you really should do some investigation on this for yourself. For it to have any value, you MUST read things you disagree with. Only then can you make an informed opinion.
^^^This needs to be repeated, and our Educational System now pushes tyranny over liberty.
Yes I heard that rumor about our decimated military with a budget equivalent to the next 10 countries combined, yet we still need to have a militia.
The reasons for the 2nd Amendment are quite clear from those who wrote the Constitution. You just can not be bothered to research it as it doesn't suit your agenda.
Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Tench Coxe:
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
Noah Webster:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."
James Madison:
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
George Washington:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence for any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
